Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • is the home in joint names but this is solely your debt? need far more history to be able to comment if it's paid off and was not just written of by one partly on their books and sold to anther, thus the cra file says £0. dx
    • So, Sunak has managed to get someone to 'volunteer to go to Rwanda hasn't he? .. for just £3000 payment to the person plus 5 years free board and lodging isnt it? - cost to UK taxpayer over £300M+ (300 million quid+) isnt it? - Bargain says Rwanda, especially with all the profit we made privately selling those luxury chalets Bravermann advertised for us   I wonder how many brits would jump at that offer? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Lets see, up to 5 years free board and lodging and £3k in my pocket .. I'd go - and like that person - just come back if/when I get bored. First job - off to Botswana for a week to see the elephants.   Of course the paid volunteers going to Botswana are meaningless - Rwanda have REPEATEDLY said they wont take any forcibly trafficked people in breach of international law eh? Have the poops actually got any civil servants to agree to go yet - probably end up as more massive payments to VIPal contractors to go and sit there doing nowt shortly eh?    
    • Hi Wondered if I could get a little advise please. I entered into a commercial lease (3 years) and within a few months I had to leave as the business I was trading with collapsed. I returned the keys to the landlord and explained the situation and no money, also likely to go on benefits but the landlord stuck to their guns. They have now instructed solicitors to send letter before action claiming just over £4000. The lease was mine and so the debt. I know this. I have emailed the solicitors twice to explain I am out of work and that with help from family I could offer a full and final settlement figure of £1500 or £10pw. This was countered by them with an offer to reduce the debt by £400, or pay off the amount over 12 months. I went back with an improved full and final offer of £2500 or £20pw. This has been rejected with the comment 'papers ready to go to court'. I have no hope of paying the £4000 and so it will have to go to court. Pity as I have no debts otherwise but not working is a killer. I wondered if they take me to court, could I ask for mediation? I also think that taking me to court will result in a pretty much nothing per week payment from my benefits. Are companies just pushing ahead with action even if a better offer is on the table? Thanks for your help.
    • Hi all, Many thanks for the advice! Unfortunately, the reply to the email was as expected…   Starbucks UK Customer Care <[email protected]> Hi xxxxxx, We are sorry to read you received a parking charge after using our Stansted Airport - A120 DT store. Unfortunately, the car park here is managed by MET parking. Both Starbucks and EuroGarages who own and operate this site are not able to help and have no authority to overturn any parking charges received. If you have followed the below terms then you would need to send all correspondence to [email protected], who will be able to assist you further. Several signs around the car park clarify the below terms and conditions: • Maximum stay 60 minutes, whilst the store is open. If the store is closed, pay to park applies. • The car park is for Starbucks customers only who make a purchase in our store, a charge will be issued if you left the site. • If you had made a purchase and required additional time, you must have inputted your registration number into the in store iPad which would have extended your stay up to 3 hours • To park in a disabled bay, you must have displayed a valid disabled badge. • If Starbucks was closed, you must have paid for parking as charges still apply, following signage located on site. • If you didn’t use the store, you must have paid for parking, following signage located on site Please ensure all further correspondence is directed to MET parking at the above email address, and accept our apologies that we cannot help you further on this matter.  Kind Regards,  Lora K  Customer Care Team Leader Starbucks Coffee Company, Building 4 Chiswick Park, London, W4 5YE
    • Thanks HB edited and re-uploaded. Thanks for the heads up 👍
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Liverpool Victoria - Help Required


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3844 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Newbie here looking for some advice please....

 

We have buildings & contents cover with Liverpool Victoria and over the last couple of months we've noticed some visible evidence of movement in our house, across the kitchen, lounge & utility room - the work tops have started to sink, the floor has some visible movement and cracking in ceilings etc.

 

We initially called British Gas as we've got cover for drains etc - we thought this might have been the initial cause - and they came out to do a survey - advising us that we did have an issue with some of the drains at the back of the house.

 

However we also rang LV as there were going to be issues relating to removal of some decking. Once LV got involved they sent out a surveyor from Davies loss adjusters who decided that yes, we had a problem with movement, that it wasn't subsidence related (phew!) and that investigation was needed to see what was causing it (as I understand it our policy covered for repair based on water loss etc). They came in and repaired the damaged drains, then attempted to carry out an infra-red survey of the kitchen floor which failed due to there being at least 3 layers of tiles to go through. They then attempted a gas test which was inconclusive (he was getting false/positive readings from furniture in our lounge!) and that was it. They've now decided that it's not a matter for them as its due to the recent extension settling or poor footings for the extension - which is nearly 20yrs old. I should add that we're also aware of the issues around concrete degradation in ex-mining areas etc - that's definitely not an issue where we live.

 

Where do I stand on this. The drains under the kitchen area were damaged and as such the loss of water etc must have had an effect on the ground under that part of my house. The tests they did were completely inconclusive. I should add that this decision has come from the loss adjuster Davies rather than LV themselves - but while LV investigate I'd appreciate some advice.

 

They've not conclusively proved it's NOT a leak from somewhere.

The movement in the house is not exclusively in the extension area.

The surveyor sent out by Davies said during his visit that the only real way to find out the problem would be to dig down into the problem area - I get the impression that they've done everything to avoid doing this due to the associated costs - ie damage to house fixtures & fittings if this is done.

 

Hope someone has some advice on this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi plastic scouser, and welcome to CAG! :-)

 

I'm not an expert but if I were you I would wait for the LV investigation and if they do nothing I would speak to the Financial Ombudsman who hopefully would put pressure on them to do a proper investigation.

 

The FOS can be really helpful in making insurance companies re-think their position. If the house is still moving then the drain repairs haven't solved the problem.

 

DD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably the only way forward is to contact a structural engineer and ask them to provide a report on what is happening to the property. Then armed with this information, you can see what the way forward is. It is going to cost you money, but you would have a £1000 subsidence excess on your Insurance policy anyway. So you would be incurring some costs.

 

Davies loss adjusters have done the minimum. They think it is a mixture of extension issues and drain leakage, that have caused some movement, but it is not subsidence. Insurance is to cover the perils shown in the policy. It does not cover general movement or construction issues.

 

You have to be careful here. You want to establish what the problem is with the property and to have relevant works done. What you don't want to have is a subsidence claim registered on the central Insurers database. Once it is registered, you would have to declare this with Insurers and probably end up paying alot more for Insurance for as long as you own the property. If it is proved that it is actually a subsidence problem as the drainage leakage has affected the foundations, then you will have a property which will have a reduced market value, as it would be more difficult to sell.

 

Even if you went to the FOS, they will want you to obtain a structural engineers report, to establish that you have a valid claim against the Insurance. So obtain a report and see where this takes you.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is very good advice.

 

I thought that getting FOS involved might make LV more inclined to help without the cost of getting a structural engineer involved, but from what you are saying it appears there's no way round this. :-(

 

The FOS have no powers to ask LV to complete more surveys at their cost, when Davies have already been out. The Policyholder is unhappy and therefore it is up to them to obtain a structural engineers report to find out whether the property has been damaged by an insured peril.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...